Feature/OPED
Forensic Audit: A Test of Buhari’s Integrity
By Obiaruko Christie Ndukwe
The battle lines were drawn, the drums of war drowning the initial applause that greeted the order for the financial probe of the corruption-riddled interventionist agency, the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), whose headquarters is in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
The first Salvo was fired by the Vice President sometime in May 2019, while on a visit to Delta State. Professor Yemi Osinbajo had publicly declared the commission a non-performer having failed to fulfil its first mandate of developing the oil-rich Niger Delta, in 9 out of 36 states. This shot by President Muhammadu Buhari’s deputy had sent the signal that all was not well with the 19-year-old agency.
This created a loophole for the Governors of the 9 states to wake up from their slumber, and together they paid a visit to the President and demanded the probe of the NDDC.
The move by the Governors who were mostly of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was seen as a political witch hunt against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), which was now in control of the commission.
Many believed that the Governors were on a mission to provoke the President against some of his party men from the region who were believed to have their fingers in the pie.
But in a twist of fate, the President, realizing the insidious agenda of the Governors, rather than settle for a probe of the commission from the period APC took over the reins of government, decided to extend the period of the probe from the date of inception to 2019.
The Governors were somehow trapped in their own nets, considering that the APC under Buhari had controlled the NDDC for five years out of the 19-year period. Some of them were actually involved in the sleaze that had characterized the agency and in turn, underdeveloped the region.
The responsibility of supervising the commission rightfully fell on the Minister of Niger Delta Affairs and the supervising Minister of the NDDC, Mr Godswill Akpabio, who was surprisingly appointed a Minister, having lost his earlier bid to return to the Senate, after a thunderous defection to the APC from the PDP.
He was a former Governor of Akwa Ibom State. Akpabio became the burden-bearer as those who were against the forensic audit of the commission let out all arsenals against him, all in a bid to frustrate the probe.
It is no longer news that the battleground became the National Assembly as the two Committees on NDDC in both chambers pulled every string to stop the audit, or at least, to ensure that Akpabio, who was one of them in the 6th Assembly, did not supervise the exercise. It was a widely celebrated battle that pitched the management of the commission against the parliament. It was an epic battle even while the COVID-19 pandemic threatened.
There were efforts to weaken the probe even as the National Assembly fought back. One such way was the stoppage of funds accrued to the organisation, thereby, crippling every activity in the region through the NDDC.
The International Oil Companies (IOCs), which were largely responsible for the funding of the commission, were forced by the Economic Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to stop payments to the NDDC account domiciled at the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
An account tagged NDDC/EFCC was later opened with the CBN, and the IOCs were compelled to pay monies in there, and the EFCC ensured that neither the management of the commission nor the Minister could access the funds.
While the whole drama was on, President Buhari did not bulge as he found a way to navigate out of the roadblocks posed by the National Assembly. He chose to make available the funds for the forensic auditors and quickly had them inaugurated for the assignment.
The urge by Akpabio to resign his appointment, at some point, was deep, yet he was resilient to see to the end of the presidential order, to ascertain the reason why the region had remained underdeveloped in spite of all the monies released for projects.
After a painstaking period of two years, without any contracts awarded or new projects executed, the forensic audit has been concluded. The President has received the report albeit through the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami.
Over 13,000 jobs were said to have been awarded, mobilization paid at 90% and yet, uncompleted or abandoned. A more scary revelation by Akpabio during the presentation of the report was that a whooping N3.2 trillion was paid out during the period in a cheque from 2001 to 2019 and an additional N2.5 trillion from statutory and non-statutory income, bringing the total sum to N6 trillion from the inception of the commission till August 2019.
It is no longer surprising why the fight was intense to scuttle the probe as initial fingers pointed at members of the National Assembly, past and present; political leaders and people of the region in active connivance with people outside the region; the security agencies and in some cases, from the presidency.
Even though the President has shown enough commitment to further investigate and prosecute those to be indicted, there are still doubts in the minds of most Nigerians on the reality of his assurances.
This stems from the belief that 75% of those involved in the merciless rape of the region’s resources are in his party and some, in his government.
Again, there are those who think that the President only hires but fails to fire. Not minding the recent sack of two Ministers.
While Buhari must be commended to toe the path where those before him failed, the President must complete the task by revealing the identities of those behind the monumental corruption in the NDDC, no matter how veiled their identities are, considering that very many of the high profile persons may have used pseudo companies, and in some cases, withdrawn their membership of those companies from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
The man in the eye of the storm, Senator Akpabio will not be spared more arrows, for either doing a good job or a bad one; depending on which line of the divide he is viewed. Even though it is not his probe, but Buhari’s!
The time for the President’s highly touted integrity to be put on a scale is now. His ability to resist the temptation of dumping the much-advertised audit will further prove his sincerity to spare no one, irrespective of whose ox is gored, and bring to book those who have voraciously cleaned out the resources of the poor people of the region that has continued to survive the nation’s economy, through oil and gas.
If the report is left in the hands of those who would use it as a tool for political witch hunt; or for “settlement”, then, there was no need in the first place for downing the tools and grinding the commission to a halt for a period of 2 years.
Whatever happens, we, the people of the region demand to know who did what and what is to become of the monies trapped in that phoney safe tagged NDDC/EFCC account?
Obiaruko Christie Ndukwe is a commentator, analyst and columnist based in Port Harcourt, Rivers State
By Nafisat Damisa
Introduction
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime
Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”. These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.
The Legal Gaps
There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance. For this article, three are considered. First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.
Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.
Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.
Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results
Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository. China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.
Hope or Illusion?
Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:
- Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
- Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
- Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
- A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
- Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.
Conclusion
AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.
Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]
By Isah Kamisu Madachi
As of April 30, 2026, the crude price is said to have reached $125 in the global market. The all-time high price per barrel was recorded in 2008, when it surged to $147. It is obvious that the price is heading in that direction or even towards what experts have predicted — crude reaching a new all-time high of $150 in the near future if crude passages remain closed in the Middle East, which would ultimately come with several disproportionate challenges for businesses and households.
In Nigeria, what began as a mild adjustment in the price of gasoline and other refined crude products has not stopped anywhere until it reached N1,400 per litre of petrol at filling stations. When the price was surging, experts in energy, economics, marketing, business and other relevant fields tried to come up with explanations for how Nigeria, despite housing the largest petrochemicals refinery in Africa and being one of the largest oil-exporting countries on the continent, would continue to absorb this shock.
Despite our advantages, Nigeria recorded the world’s second-highest surge in petrol prices following the escalating geopolitical tension in the Middle East. In Africa, Nigeria has the highest spike, with many sources citing it at 39.5% and above. Even non-oil-producing countries in Africa, and countries that do not refine a drop of oil, did not experience this surge. Also, African countries like South Africa at 1%, Morocco at 2.1%, and Tanzania at 2.7% experienced far smaller increases that are nowhere near Nigeria’s.
To put it in context, South Korea, Japan, and China are among the foremost dependents on the Strait of Hormuz, whose closure escalated the crude price, but none of these countries has recorded even a 20% increase in their petrol prices. Nigeria does not import its crude through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, as an oil-exporting nation, we have suffered some of the sharpest petrol price increases in Africa.
What went wrong in Nigeria to warrant this surge is not the primary focus of this piece. What lies ahead is. As a result of the increase in petrol prices, Nigerians have been disproportionately affected. Life has become unbearably difficult, with sharp increases in transportation costs, rising food prices, and higher costs of goods and services. Even charging points that used to collect N150 for charging a phone or battery now charge N300 or more.
As it stands, the gap between the current crude price and the predicted new all-time high is about $25. This means that if the passages continue to remain closed, we are not far from another historic price peak. It is even said that reopening the passages may not immediately stabilise prices, as crude tankers would still take time to reach their destinations.
What this means for Nigeria is another sharp increase in refined petroleum product prices, which could trigger another wave of stagflation. Already struggling, Nigerians do not deserve this. They are only just adapting to the post-subsidy era, yet are being hit again by another round of global geopolitical tensions. Many are already in deep energy poverty, with businesses struggling due to unstable electricity supply.
Therefore, as crude oil prices hover above $125 per barrel and threaten to reach the predicted $150 if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz persist, Nigeria must act decisively to shield its citizens. The Dangote Refinery exists. Nigeria refines oil. What the federal government owes Nigerians at this point is a deliberate policy decision to make that the refinery serve domestic needs first, with pricing that does not mirror whatever is happening in the global market. That is not complicated; other oil-producing countries do exactly this.
The NMDPRA has the authority to act on this. The question is whether there is a political will to act before another price wave hits and Nigerians are once again left to absorb what their counterparts elsewhere never have to.
Sub-national governments also have something to do. Commercial motorcyclists and small business owners are the people who feel every petrol price increase the hardest and the fastest. Pushing CNG and LPG adoption among this group beyond the FCT and Lagos, with genuine support, would cushion a significant part of the next shock. Expanding solar access in underserved communities would do the same. A shop owner running on solar is not at the mercy of the next diesel price spike.
These solutions are quite feasible. Nigeria has attempted versions of them before. Where we often seem to get it wrong is in execution, and Nigeria has to treat this with the same urgency and seriousness as given to elections, for the well-being of its citizens. The only thing that has never matched the problem is the seriousness of the response.
Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]
By Gbolahan Oluyemi
In 2025, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) directed all Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) to demand a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) from service providers before engaging their services. This new policy typically affects various types of entities, including small and medium-scale enterprises, most of which are not usually compliance-driven. Following this directive, the PCC has become an essential compliance document for both large, medium and small-scale firms. This article provides a guide on what a PCC is, why it matters, and how it can be obtained.
What is a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC)?
A Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) is an official document issued by PenCom confirming that an organisation has complied with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. It is an annual document that must be renewed every year at no cost. The yearly renewal is intended to ensure that organisations treat compliance as a continuous activity rather than a one-off act.
Why is a PCC Important?
The PCC is important because it demonstrates that an organisation is compliant with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, especially as it relates to employee pension contributions under Section 4 (1) of the Pension Reform Act and subscription to group life insurance under Section 4 (5) of the Pension Reform Act. It is also required for certain transactions, such as government contracts and engagements with compliance-sensitive partners. In essence, a PCC assures investors, partners, and clients that your business is properly structured and compliant with regulatory requirements.
Who Needs a Pension Clearance Certificate?
Under Nigerian law, companies with three or more employees are required to participate in the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). If your organisation employs at least three staff members and provides or intends to provide services to Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) or other regulated entities, you are expected to obtain a PCC annually.
How Do I Obtain a PCC?
PenCom issues the PCC electronically and at no cost through its web portal: https://pcc.pencom.gov.ng/. Please note that Applicants who are just beginning compliance and remitting employees’ pensions are required to first obtain an employer code from a Pension Fund Administrator (PFA). This code is necessary to initiate the PCC application on the PenCom portal.
Upon logging into the portal, you will be required to complete your company profile by providing your date of incorporation, contact details, and website (if applicable), as well as uploading your CAC documents.
Next, you will upload an Excel schedule (using the template provided on the website) containing your employee list. After this, you will be required to upload Excel sheets detailing pension contributions. You will also need to upload your organisation’s group life insurance documentation and payment instrument.
Finally, you will review your application and submit it for further processing by PenCom. Before commencing an application, ensure you have the following:
- Certificate of Incorporation (CAC documents)
- Group Life Insurance Policy for employees
- Evidence of Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) registration for employees
- Three years’ proof of monthly pension remittances, including penalties for any defaults (where applicable). For companies less than three years old, provide proof of remittances from the date of incorporation
- A valid Tax Identification Number (TIN)
- An employee schedule showing staff details and contributions (usually in Excel format) Templates are available on the PenCom portal
Also note that for the portal to accept employee details and remittance records, employees must have completed their data capture with their respective Pension Fund Administrator and updated their records to reflect their current employer.
Conclusion
Obtaining a Pension Clearance Certificate in Nigeria may seem technical at first, but once proper processes are established, it becomes routine. The key is consistency in remittance, maintenance of accurate records and prioritisation of compliance in overall operations.
For many Nigerian businesses, the PCC is more than a regulatory requirement; it is a mark of credibility. In a competitive environment, that credibility can make all the difference.
Gbolahan Oluyemi is a Legal Practitioner and currently leads Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Gbolahan via: [email protected] or [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn